JAGMOHAN BAHL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal, by special leave, is directed against the order dated 01.10.2014 passed by the High Court in CRLMC No. 3202/2014, whereby the learned Single Judge, in exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 439(2) read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), has set aside the order dated 20.06.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Saket Courts, Delhi, who had granted the benefit of anticipatory bail to the appellants in FIR No. 92/2014 instituted for the offence punishable under Section 420/34 IPC, registered at P.S. Defence Colony, New Delhi.

(2.) The factual matrix that is required to be exposited for the purpose of disposal of the present appeal is that the 2nd respondent filed an FIR against the present appellants alleging that both of them had conspired against him and in furtherance of the said conspiracy, they had subjected him to cheating, criminal breach of trust and have misappropriated the money. As alleged in the FIR, the appellants allured the said respondent to buy a property situated at C-93, Defence Colony, New Delhi, for which he had paid an advance of Rs.1,50,00,000/- (Rupees one crore fifty lakhs). As the narration would unfurl, it was apprised by the appellants that the property comprising entire basement floor and entire ground floor with one servant quarter with servant's W.C. and with two car parking space, with structure standing thereon admeasuring 401 sq. yards along with proportionate undivided, indivisible and impartible share of ownership rights in the land underneath would be sold to him and he will be delivered vacant peaceful physical possession. There are series of other allegations which would show that on the basis of oral agreement, certain amount was paid and on 30.04.2013, an agreement to sell was duly executed between the parties. It is also the case of the informant that remaining part of the amount i.e. Rs.4,50,00,000/- (Rupees four crores fifty lakhs) was to be paid to the accused persons at the time of registration of the sale deed on or before 26.10.2013.

(3.) As the allegations proceed, after receipt of the amount, the appellants disputed the amount and delayed the execution of the sale deed. On an enquiry being made, the 2nd respondent came to know that the appellants had entered into an agreement to sell the said property to a third person. That was the foundation to lodge the FIR.